"I
have never met a happier people than the Germans and Hitler is one of the
greatest men. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is the worship of a
national hero who has saved his country.” - David
Lloyd George, Daily Express, 17.9.1936

WINSTON
CHURCHILL:
If our country were defeated I should hope we should find a champion as
indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the
nations." - 'Step by Step',
p.143.

WINSTON
CHURCHILL:
"In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he has succeeded in
restoring Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he
restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very great extent,
reversed the results of the Great War.... the vanquished are in the process of
becoming the victors and the victors the vanquished.... whatever else might be
thought about these exploits they are certainly among the most remarkable in
the whole history of the world.” – 1935.Ironically the author
of these comments had directly the opposite effect on his own country.

THEODOR
HEUSS:
"He moved souls, the will to sacrifice, and great devotion, enthralling
and enthusiastically inspiring everyone by his appearance."

VISCOUNT
ROTHERMERE:
"He has a supreme intellect. I have known only two other men to whom I
could apply such distinction - Lord Northcliffe and Lloyd George. If one puts
a question to Hitler, he gives an immediate, brilliant clear answer. There is
no human being living whose promise on important matters I would trust more
readily. He believes that Germany has a divine calling and that the German
people are destined to save Europe from the revolutionary attacks of
Communism. He values family life very highly, whereas Communism is its worst
enemy. He has thoroughly cleansed the moral, ethical life of Germany,
forbidden publication of obscene books, and performance of questionable plays
and films.

No
words can describe his politeness; he disarms men as well as women and can win
both at any time with his conciliatory, pleasant smile. He is a man of rare
culture. His knowledge of music, the arts and architecture is profound.” -
'Warnings and Predictions', p.180 – 183.

HANS
GRIMM: "I
witness with awe and admiration, that he, as nearly the first in the world,
caused multitudes without force or any personal benefits to follow him of
their own free will and volition."

G.E.O
KNIGHT: “Altogether,
Herr Hitler has worked miracles for the new Germany. I anticipate that in a
very short time, the Chancellor will have shown the world more than it ever
bargained for in its wildest efforts to crush the new regime." -
In Defence of Germany

JACQUES
BAINVILLE: "For
Stressseman represented political parties which no longer existed, whereas
Hitler enjoys the confidence of the whole of Germany expressed by the votes of
over forty million electors.' " - l'Action Francais

HOUSTON
STEWART CHAMBERLAIN: "At
one stroke you have transformed the state of my soul. That Germany in the
greatest hour of its need can produce a Hitler testifies to its
vitality."

THE
DAILY MAIL:
"He succeeded in ascending to the highest power-position in Germany with
very little spilling of blood or loss of human life in a land of 68 million
inhabitants. Austria was annexed without one shot being fired." -
Daily Mail, 20th, May, 1938

THE
OBSERVER:
“I have talked with the humblest type of labourers, with merchants,
professional men. I have yet to discover a dissenting voice to the question of
loyalty to the Fuehrer." - John L.
Garvin.

GEORGE
BERNARD SHAW: "When
I said that Herr Hitler's action was right and inevitable, the storm of abuse
that was about to burst on me was suddenly checked by Mr. Lloyd George saying
exactly the same thing. It is inconceivable that a single vote should be cast
against him."

DOUGLAS
REED:
"Germans in their country are not less well cared for than the English
people in theirs, but better."

JOHN
F. KENNEDY, U.S PRESIDENT: “After
visiting these two places (Berchtesgaden and Obersalzberg) you can easily
understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that
surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived. He
had in him the stuff of which legends are made.” -
Prelude to Leadership, The European Diary of J.F Kennedy, Summer, 1945.

JESSE
OWENS, AMERICAN NEGRO OLYMPIC ATHLETE:
"When I passed the Chancellor he arose, waved his hand at me, and I waved
back at him. I think the writers showed bad taste in criticising the man of
the hour in Germany." - Richard D. Mandell. The Nazi Olympics

THE
MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN:
"I think that it must be admitted that National Socialism has done a
great deal for Germany. It has undoubtedly cleaned up Germany in the ordinary
moral sense of the word. The defeatism, the corruption so manifest a
characteristic in the days after the war has disappeared, at any rate from
public view. It has given discipline and order and a sense of purpose to the
great majority of young people who in earlier days did not know where to go or
what they were living for." - British Ambassador, Washington, June
29th, 1937.

EVE
BRAUN TO HER SISTER: "I
must write you these words so that you will not feel sad over our end here in
the shelter. It is rather we who are filled with sorrow because it is your
fate to live on into the chaos that will follow. For myself, I am glad to die
here; glad to be at the side of the Fuehrer; foremost of all, glad that the
horror now to come is spared me.

Dr.
JOSEPH GOEBBELS TO HIS STEPSON, HARALD: My
Dear Harald / We sit locked in the Fuehrer's shelter in the R.C., fighting for
lives and honour. I hardly believe that we shall ever see each other again;
therefore, it is likely that these will be the last lines you will ever
receive from me. I expect from you, should you outlive this war, that you do
only that which will honour your mother and father.

Germany
will outlive this terrible war, but only if it has examples upon which to
guide its reconstruction. Such an example we want to give here. Do not let
yourself be confused by the uproar that will now reign throughout the world.
The lies will one day break down under their own weight and the truth will
again triumph. The hour will come when we shall stand pure and undefiled as
our aims and beliefs have always been.

Farewell,
my dear Harald. Whether we shall ever see each other again lies in the hand of
God. If it is not to be, then always be proud to have belonged to a family
that even in the face of disaster remains true to the Fuehrer to the very last
and true to his pure and Holy cause. All the best and my heartfelt greetings.
Your Papa.

GENERAL
LEON DEGRELLE: "Hitler
was the greatest statesman Europe has ever known. History will prove that when
whipped up emotions have died down. He was more matter of fact, generally more
unfolded than Napoleon. Napoleon was more of a vanquishing, empire-founding
Frenchman than a true European. Hitler, in his being a man of his time,
dreamed of an enduring, just, honest Europe, unified by the initiative of the
victor. A Europe however in which each ethnic group could develop according to
their merits and accomplishments. The proof of this is that he offered Petain
his hand. Just as Bismarck knew how to outgrow Prussia and become a German, so
Hitler soon changed from being a German to being a European. At an early stage
he disconnected himself from imperialistic ambition.

Without
any difficulty he began to think of himself as a European and initiated the
creation of a Europe in which Germany - like Prussia in Bismarck's time, was
to be the foundation stone.

Some
comrades of the Fuhrer might still have been short-sighted Pan-Germanists. But
Hitler had the genius, the right scale, the absence of bias and the necessary
vision to accomplish the terrific task.

He
had an authority, not to be found a second time in the history of the
continent. His success would have established wealth and civilisation of
Europe for centuries, probably forever. Hitler's plans for Europe would have
meant a blessing for us all."

HITLER’S
LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT: “It
is not true that I wished for war in 1939, neither I nor anyone else in
Germany. War was provoked exclusively by those international statesmen who
were of Jewish race or who worked in the interests of international Jewry....

"I
nourish the conviction that the hour will come when millions of men who now
curse us will take a stand behind us to welcome the new Europe, our common
creation born of a painful and laborious struggle and an arduous triumph - a
Europe which is the symbol of greatness, honour, strength, honesty and
justice."

"At
the time of supreme peril I must die a martyr's death for the people. But
after my death will come something really great, an overwhelming revelation to
the world of my mission." / "My spirit will rise from the grave, and
the world will see I was right."

"The
day will come when we shall make an agreement with the men of other Aryan
nations. Then there will come a union between all of the one, good, ruling
race throughout the world.”

Dr.
JOSEPH GOEBBELS: “Do
not let yourself be confused by the uproar that will now reign throughout the
world. The lies will one day break down
under their own weight and the truth will again triumph. The hour will
come when we shall stand pure and undefiled as our aims and beliefs have
always been.” / "This century will be named and shaped after
Adolf Hitler."

NOBEL
PRIZE WINNER: “I
am not worthy to speak aloud of Adolf Hitler. And his life and work do not
invite sentimental words. He was a warrior for mankind and a herald of the
gospel of justice for all nations. He was a reformative figure of the highest
rank, and it was his historic fate that he had to work in a time of
unprecedented baseness, which in the end brought him down.

“Thus,
I suppose, must the ordinary Western European look upon Adolf Hitler. And we,
his closest followers, now bow our heads before his immortal shroud.” -
Norwegian writer. Nobel Prize winner, Knut Hamsun, upon the death of Adolf
Hitler, Aftenposten, 1May 1945.

‘The
enemy of subversive thought is not suppression, but publication: truth has no
need to fear the light of day; fallacies wither under it. The unpopular views
of today are the commonplaces of tomorrow, and in any case the wise man wants
to hear both sides of every question.’ -
Sir Stanley Unwin.

______________________________________

David
Miliband’s family ‘lied’ to enter UK

Brendan
Montague, The Sunday Times,
April 6, 2008

Left:
David Miliband, Right: Ralph Miliband – D.M.’s grand-uncle

THE
family of David Miliband, the foreign secretary, was branded untrustworthy and
misleading by Home Office and Foreign Office officials when it tried to
migrate to Britain, documents to be released tomorrow will reveal.

The
foreign secretary will find his department thought that his father and
grandfather played fast and loose with the truth and lied to immigration
officers.

The
government papers accuse Miliband’s late grandfather, Samuel, a Polish
migrant, of exaggerating the antisemitism he faced in Belgium after the second
world war in order to move to Britain. A hand-written Home Office report from
March 8, 1949, doubts the Milibands’ honesty, stating: “Miliband, father
and son, have so misrepresented the case in the past, I am afraid we can place
no reliance on their statements.”

Samuel’s
claim that he faced “Nazi” style antisemitism were dismissed as “very
thin”. His son Ralph (the foreign secretary’s father) was accused by the
Home Office of making repeated “misrepresentations” to support Samuel’s
application.

The
files also reveal that when embassy officials interviewed Samuel directly he
admitted the claims of Nazi-style persecution were untrue and that he was not
being expelled from Belgium.

The
revelation of the way in which the foreign secretary’s forebears talked
their way into Britain is particularly piquant given Labour’s record on
migration. When David Miliband took up the post last year, he said immigration
would remain a key issue. Since then, however, Labour has continued to preside
over record levels of immigration despite concern among voters that the rate
is too high.

The
documents, obtained by The Sunday Times under a freedom of information
request, reveal how a struggle over migration played a key part in the
fortunes of the Miliband family.

When
the Germans overran Belgium in May 1940, Samuel and Ralph fled because they
were Jews. They were given refuge in Britain. Ralph stayed and later became an
influential Marxist academic and close friends with Tony Benn and other Labour
grandees until his death in 1994.

Samuel
returned to Belgium in 1946. Finding his business destroyed and refused a work
permit, he tried to return to Britain. Between 1948 and 1954 he applied nine
times to be made a British citizen or to have six-month visas extended.

The
documents, which include reports from Special Branch, show that immigration
officials recorded Samuel had “misrepresented the case” when he claimed
there was growing antisemitism in Belgium.

They
also cast doubt on his claims that he needed to visit his son Ralph in England
because the young academic was suffering “nervous depression”.

A
letter sent on behalf of Ernest Bevin, then foreign secretary, in May 1948
stated: “Mr Miliband was interviewed by a representative of His Majesty’s
embassy and stated there had never been any question of his expulsion from
Belgium.

“The
suggestion the Belgian authorities are adopting a ‘Nazi’ or antisemitic
policy . . . seems to be without foundation.”

After
the war, hundreds of thousands of Jewish people were left homeless and
stateless and millions of people were beginning to understand the enormity of
the Holocaust. In 1948, however, Belgium was under the relatively liberal rule
of Paul-Henri Spaak, the Socialist.

Martin
Conway, a historian at Balliol College, Oxford, said there was almost no
evidence of government or police persecution of Jews in Brussels after the
war. “It could not be said they were forced out of Belgium because of
antisemitism,” he said.

Harold
Laski, the eminent intellectual, came to the aid of the Milibands. In personal
correspondence with James Chuter Ede, then home secretary, Laski asked him
“as one socialist to another” to allow Samuel residency to show the world
that the West was more compassionate than “the Russian way”. In the end
Samuel’s application was successful.

Yesterday
David Miliband and his brother Ed, the Cabinet Office minister, declined to
comment. The Foreign Office said: “This is a personal matter for the foreign
secretary.”

The
documents have echoes of the position Michael Howard found himself in when he
was Tory leader. While his party was opposed to mass immigration, Howard was
forced to admit that his father had lied about his circumstances when he
applied for British citizenship in 1947.

____________________________

World
still silent about Gaza holocaust

By
our staff writer, Tehran Times,Sunday,
March 9, 2008

The
Zionists falsified history and exaggerated the number of Jews who died during
World War II in order to justify the establishment of the Israeli entity --
and have even convinced some countries to pass laws making it a criminal
offense to question the Holocaust myth -- but today the Israelis themselves
are creating a holocaust in Gaza.

The
recent Israeli attacks on occupied Palestinian territory have been accompanied
by an increase in human rights violations and war crimes. Everyone’s life is
in danger in the Gaza Strip. As one Israeli official shamelessly stated, the
Zionist regime is massacring Palestinians with the intention of creating a
“holocaust” in Gaza. Only two months ago, the Israeli attacks on Gaza made
December 2007 the month with the highest death toll in the Gaza Strip for the
year.

The
newly established UN Human Rights Council censured Israel for the aggression
during its sixth special session in Geneva on January 23 and 24. It also
called for urgent international action to put an end to the Zionist regime’s
serious human rights violations in Palestine, especially drawing attention to
Israel’s military attacks on Gaza and the blockade of the region. But
nothing happened.

The
UN Human Rights Council also censured Israel during three other special
sessions on the human rights situation in Palestine. However, despite their
claims about being champions of human rights, most Western countries have
refused to vote for UN resolutions condemning Israel for its attacks on Gaza.
Unfortunately, such resolutions have repeatedly failed in the past because of
objections by the United States and certain European countries, giving the
impression that the Zionist regime can act with impunity.

Thus,
with the open support of the United States, Israel launched its second major
assault on the Gaza Strip in the past three months, which has caused the death
of many Palestinians in the bloodiest deadliest time period since the Al-Aqsa
Intifada began in September 2000. On March 1, the overall death toll in Gaza
was 58, which was the highest in a single day since the beginning of the Al-Aqsa
Intifada. The highest previous death toll for a single day was 38 on March 8,
2002. Over 116 Palestinians have been killed since February 27, 2008. About
half of the victims were civilians, including a number of women and children.

Some
of the most critically injured were sent home from Shifa Hospital, Gaza’s
largest hospital, because there was no more room for them. A doctor at the
hospital said that the beds crammed hospital corridors and the intensive care
unit was overflowing. The doctors union urged its members to cancel leaves and
appealed for blood donations. Christopher Gunness, a spokesman for the UN
agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), said that the UN shuttered 37 schools
which it runs in northern Gaza because of the fighting, and about 40,000
students are affected. The Israelis are inflicting collective punishment on
the Palestinians and pursuing a genocide policy in Gaza.

In
Syria, exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal described Israeli attacks against
civilians in Gaza as “the real Holocaust”. Unfortunately, the United
Nations Security Council, the European Union, and the organizations that claim
to be defenders of human rights have all remained silent about the merciless
assault on the Palestinians and the humanitarian tragedy which is unfolding in
Palestine.

The
UN Security Council met behind closed doors on March 1 in an emergency session
held at the request of the Palestinians and their Arab supporters. The Arab
League’s UN observer, Yahya Mahmassani said, “We want a condemnation of
the killings from the Security Council. Regrettably, because of the United
States’ objection, the Security Council failed to issue even an official
statement.” The Zionist regime’s relentless air and land attack on the
Gaza Strip is a clear violation of international humanitarian law and the
Geneva Convention of 1949 and Israeli officials must be brought before the
International Criminal Court and charged with committing war crimes.

The
Zionist regime’s wanton slaughter of the people of Gaza is a new holocaust,
and if the situation is not addressed immediately, the violence will most
likely spill over to the rest of Palestine. After the UN Security Council’s
failure to address the tragic situation in Palestine, the international
community is looking to the Human Rights Council, which recently started its
seventh session in Geneva, to see how this body is going to deal with the
situation.

In
2004, Norwegian authorities refused to give Mordechai Vanunu asylum in Norway,
and today it was revealed that the authorities responsible were instructed by
then responsible minister and now leader of the Norwegian conservative party,
Erna Solberg, as it was more important to remain on good terms with Israel
than to defend his human rights.

Representatives
of the current government, however, now say that Vanunu should be given a new
chance to seek asylum in Norway. I will not put my hopes too high, but at
least it may reveal something about the "special relationship"
between Norway (which provided Israel with heavy water for their nuclear
weapons programme) and Israel.

The
trial has begun in Israel of the man accused of helping Hitler in his plan to
exterminate the Jews. Adolf
Eichmann faces 15 charges, including crimes against humanity, crimes against
the Jewish people and war crimes. He sat in a bullet-proof glass dock flanked
by two guards specially chosen because their families had not suffered
directly at the hands of the Nazis.

The
three judges hearing the case in Jerusalem were all refugees from the Nazi
regime in Germany. The charges were read out in Hebrew by chief judge Mr
Justice Moshe Landau and translated into German for the prisoner.

It
took one hour and 15 minutes to list all the details of the charges against
Adolf Eichmann during which time the 55-year-old stood stiffly in the dock.

'No
jurisdiction'

The
first issue the court dealt with was its competence to hear the Eichmann case
at all. His lawyer, Dr Robert Servatius, argued that as the state of Israel
did not exist at the time of the alleged offences it had no jurisdiction.

Dr
Servatius said that his client was "free of guilt" and was being
prosecuted for things he was drawn into by the Nazi state.

Whatever
the judgement, many say it is remarkable the case against Adolf Eichmann has
even been brought.

After
the end of the Second World War he escaped from a prison camp and avoided
facing the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.

In
1950 he arrived in Argentina which was a safe haven for many Nazi war
criminals. However, last year a team of Israeli secret agents abducted him and
smuggled him to Israel.

Here
is a 3-part article, "Is Zionism the ideology of The New World
Order?", which might be of interest for you. The first two parts of this
article were published in www.PalestineChronicle.comon this date. You are free to publish all parts or just republish the
PC-version. Yours sincerely, Lasse Wilhelmson

_________________

Is
Zionism the ideology of The New World Order?

By
Lasse Wilhelmson

There
is a debate currently taking place in Sweden concerning the national
institute, Forum for Living History (FFLH). It was established by the social
democrats when they were in power in 2003. Its, probably unique, undertaking
is to spread knowledge and to engage predominantly young people, for
“democracy, tolerance and human rights with the Holocaust as the starting
point” and to create awareness of the threat posed by so-called
anti-Semitism. “The Story Must be Told” they say, so that it will never
occur again. Hitherto however, the FFLH has not concerned itself with The
Palestinian catastrophe, Al Nakba.

The
FFLH mainly supervises projects in schools and carries out dubious opinion
polls

http://altahrir.blogspot.com/2006/04/are-40-percent-of-all-swedes-anti.htmlamong the general public. It
also cooperates quite overtly and shamelessly with the Zionist propaganda
institute Middle East Media Research Institute – MEMRI. The head is Yigal
Carmon who worked for the Israeli intelligence service 1968-88 and now appears
as an expert on Anti-Semitism in Arabic and Iranian press for a Swedish
governmental organisation

Hence,
we have here a unique example of the production of Zionist ideology,
authorised by the state and spread through official government campaigns
including large amounts of ready-made material, free of charge.

FFLH
has recently been commissioned by the present conservative government to carry
out a new school project in 2008, concerning oppression and terror during
communist regimes, mainly those of the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia.

Researchers
of history have protested in an appeal, saying among other things, “(we)
nurture a growing concern that history, as a school subject, is being turned
into a battlefield for the government’s ideological campaigns and that the
openness and critical attitudes FFLH purports to stimulate, are being
threatened”.

They
further question whether it is “ the task of the government to replace the
normal teaching of history with campaign history, along with issuing detailed
directions as to how history should be interpreted and used.” The appeal
ends with a quotation from the campaign’s instructions for teachers. “In a
dictatorship, the way history is told always aims at serving the state”.
And, lastly, the researchers pose a rhetorical question, wondering what
conclusions of all this the pupils risk making.

This
initiative is commendable, but less so than if the appeal had been made when
the FFLH was starting up. There have been no appeal from researchers until
communism came next on the agenda for scrutiny. And why is al Nakba not among
the genocides and persecutions referred to by the protesting historians? There
seems to be an agreement between them and FFLH . The Story of Al Nakba Must
not be Told. Obviously, the political Left must take some responsibility for
this.

An
illustrative example is the Swedish communist party’s foremost spokesman on
the situation in Palestine. He carries out his political work in an exclusive
Jewish Zionist “organisation for peace”, although as a Marxist he ought to
be both an atheist and anti-Zionist. In the organisation he takes upon himself
to fight “anti-Semitism” within the solidarity movement for Palestine, a
movement that willingly works together with Jewish leftwing Zionists and
allows them to set the agenda; as they say themselves, so as not to risk being
accused of “anti-Semitism”.

The
result of this cooperation is that issues of the Palestinians’ inalienable
right to return from expulsion, the Jewish state, the Israeli lobby, the
Ziocons, and Zionism become so-called non-questions, not only for the
Palestine solidarity movement but for all anti-imperialists, for whom oil
becomes the sole factor that causes all the evil in the world. This
ideological Zionisering of the western world is essential for carrying on
neo-colonial wars, especially those against Islam and the Arab world.

In
Sweden’s largest daily tabloid newspaper, Expressen, however, a prominent liberal person of Rumanian Jewish
ancestry, criticises the newly launched FFLH campaign against communism. In
answer to this, I submitted the article “Comparing Zionism with Fascism is
Quite in Order”, see below. A week passed, and I received the answer that
the editor had had no success in trying to engage more people in the debate,
not surprisingly, and that “ your article as you will understand, is no
longer of current interest”.

No
other newspaper or magazine has published the article and several have said
that they find it too controversial, or that they lack the expertise needed to
scrutinise the article which, despite this, they all find “very interesting
and well written.” I could not in my wildest dreams have imagined the
creativity of “radical” editors. They put forward incredibly far-fetched
apologies for not publishing the article.

Apologies
that went against all the publicist principles they claim to adhere to. Here
follows the article:

Comparing
Zionism with Fascism Is Quite in Order

On
the 17th of March 2008, in the tabloid newspaper Expressen entitled “Comparing Communism with Fascism is quite in
order”, Ana Maria Narti discusses the connection between ideology and
practice in Communism. She maintains that Forum for Living History (FFLH)
refuses to see this link, thus causing confusion rather than enlightenment.
The reason behind this is that the leading campaign researcher is of the
opinion that there can be no comparison between Communism and Fascism, because
there was “much light” in the Communist utopia.

I
am inclined to agree with Narti’s criticism, but it also applies to Fascism,
or National Socialism, whose totalitarian ideologies also contained “much
light”. I would go as far as to say that this is typical of all so-called
ideologies, this inclusion of “much light”, and that, because of this, it
is vital to make the connection to their role in society before arriving at a
reasonable assessment of their merits. Not the least, because ideologies are
always used to justify “much darkness”.

I
am personally sceptical of all ideologies. They consist of locked dogmas that
leave no room for people’s own thoughts, thus making them easier to rule and
control. The significance of the media and of education as producers of
ideology in today’s global world can hardly be overstated in this context.
Governments also realise this, FFLH itself is an example. This should,
however, in principle, make us cautious.

Independent
institutes would be preferable for historical research and we already have a
form for political expression in the right to build parties and in our
parliamentary liberal democracy.

Narti’s
article touches on the important question of the method the Swedish people
choose to gain knowledge of history for purposes of prevention ie so that they
are able to recognise totalitarian ideologies before it is too late, by
looking at their role in society. The story must be told in order for us to
prevent the recurrence of atrocities to human nature. So let as get to the
roots of not only Communism but also of Zionism, another ideology born in the
middle of the nineteenth century.

The
fundaments of Zionism were laid down by Moses Hess, called the communist
rabbi. He was one of Germany’s earliest renowned socialists and Karl
Marx’s mentor in his search for socialism. He is considered by Zionists as
the first Zionist and wrote the book “Rome and Jerusalem” (1862 ). In the
book Hess emphasises the Jewish “race” as superior and chosen, and the
Jewish religion as the best guarantee for Jewish nationality.

Theodor
Hertzl is usually considered to be Zionism’s founder. Later on, he referred
to Hess’s book as the one that says everything worth saying about Zionism.
Hertzl presented a plan for the colonisation of Palestine in his book “The
Jewish State” (1896), which was affirmed at the first Zionist congress in
1897. The Jewish “race” is seen as a people with a right to their own
state in Palestine, the location of Mount Zion. The goal is a Socialist Utopia
– a model state - with “light” similar to that of Communism.

The
Zionist Project was further developed by Ber Beorochov who argued
“territorial concentration” as a solution to the Jewish question. He
founded Poale Zion, the Marxist Zionist Party which supported the Russian
Revolution in 1917. Ben Gurion, one of the Party members and Israel´s
founder, came to Palestine at the beginning of the twentieth century. He
considered himself a Bolshevik and was in favour of the dictatorship of the
proletariat in all countries, except Palestine where he favoured the
dictatorship of Zionism. What, then, are the practical politics of Zionism?

The
Zionist slogan ‘A land without people to a people without land’ has
engineered the Jewish colonisation of Palestine for a hundred years or more.
To realise its goal, a ‘Jewish State’, there is a need for a substantial
majority of Jews, hence the ethnic cleansing of the people who originally
lived there, a so-called lebensraum. Israel is, therefore, essentially a
racist state. Jewish superiority is maintained by a system of apartheid,
inherent in laws, administration and religion.

To
this day, Israel lacks a constitution and official borders, entirely in
keeping with Zionism’s demand for more land.

Of
what was originally Palestine, 85 percent has been stolen or annexed, and the
rest is occupied. In 1948, 800 000 Palestinians were driven off or fled the
country, and are denied their right to return, a right laid down by the UN.
The Palestinians call this the catastrophe - Al Nakba.

The
West Bank consists of walled-in enclaves which are controlled by hundreds of
checkpoints and Gaza has become the largest open-air prison/ghetto in the
world, blockaded and suffering starvation. About 10 000 Palestinians, many of
them children, are in Israeli jails without trials or judgements. Israel’s
dealings with the Palestinians amount to what is formally named genocide.

Zionism
puts together “Race”, People, Nation and “the Chosen” to make a
National Socialist version of colonialism – “lebensraum” and “blut und
boden” – and it existed as early as the nineteenth century. Later, German
National Socialism was created with the same ideological components and with
similar policies for society. If Nazism is the Germans’ version of National
Socialism, then Zionism is the Jews’.

"I
too, like Hitler, believe in the power of the blood idea"

This
is written by Chaim Nachman Bailik, Israel’s national poet, in “The
Present Hour” (1934).

The
crimes committed by Zionism are the result of the Zionist ideology.

This
story should be told, Forum for Living History.

Täby,
19th March 2008.

_________

Lasse
Wilhelmson: Partakes in the debate about the situation in the Middle East.
Member of the local government of Täby for 23 years, 4 of which in an
executive position. Lived in Israel for a few years in the early 1960s.

__________

Postscript

Sending
the article to many newspapers and private persons in Sweden caused quite a
commotion, with comments such as “but Lasse, you turn everything upside
down…” or “you must have known you can’t write things like that..”.
This is rather ironic, considering I have written other articles from 2003 and
onwards with exactly the same content, but perhaps this time the result was
all too obvious. It would seem that the reader resists taking in the facts
presented, thus inhibiting thoughts from grasping the content.

Those
close to me say I should be careful about what I say and write, even if it is
true, because people can take offence and become sad. You know better than
anyone how sensitive the ”Jewish taboo” is, they say to me. Leftwing
people try to convince me that Zionism is just an invention of imperialism and
that my articles contain “racist conspiracy theories”. Believe it or not,
I have even been told that the issues I raise lack relevance because Jews do
not really exist. That is like saying that Nazism lacks relevance because
Germans do not really exist.

The
Left’s indulgence towards Zionism is probably not just an expression of the
fear of having “anti-Semitic” smeared all over it, or of the limitations
of Marxism. Perhaps the common ground shared by the Left and Zionism is
finally coming to light. It is hardly a coincidence that many neo-conservative
Jewish Zionists used to be Trotskyites, or that Wall Street financed the
overthrow of the Bolsheviks in Russia. Could it be, in fact, that Karl Marx
and Moses Hess developed two branches of the same project, back then in the
middle of the 19th century when political ideologies were beginning to take
form?

The
mentality of the western world, evolved since the second world war and
ultimately legitimising criminal neo-colonial wars, is that “we” must
defend ourselves against “them” by waging preventive warfare in the
service of democracy. Our noble goals give us the moral right to treat
“them”, the terrorists who are all that are against us, with no concern
for existing laws or international human rights. We place ourselves above
these “terrorists”. To protect our own safety, we even agree to diminish
our own human rights, a dire necessity, in this noble fight for humanity. This
is how it goes, this upside down morality. Racist tribe mentality for the
chosen are the morals of The New World Order, totally at odds with humanity
and international solidarity.

May
what happened to the Jews in the Holocaust never happen again, it is the
opposite of the democracy our boys and girls are risking their lives for, in
peace- keeping missions around the world. “The Story Must be Told” and we
must not question it, not even remotely. Those who do, are correctly
imprisoned. How can they make a mockery of the dead and their families. Here,
if anywhere, freedom of speech has its limits. Let us defend the Jewish state
from being annihilated. Never again let “anti-Semitism” raise its ugly
head. Leave no new Hitler alone, even if he happens to be a Muslim.

Hence
this western mentality merges into a political ideology, or rather into a kind
of religion that controls and rules the thoughts of people.

In
the New World Order, the Holocaust is the new church. That is why anyone who
is against us is actually an “anti-Semite” and must be imprisoned together
with the “Holocaust-deniers”. FFLH in Sweden is one example of all these
churches. Questioning the authority of this church is thus today the biggest
of all crimes that can be committed against the New World Order.

Zionism
is shown here as increasingly becoming the important tool of the New World
Order. If or when its model state Israel has served its purpose, it will be
sacrificed by the Power Elite who will develop the ideology needed for a
single Big Brother State which will “save” the world. Crises of population
and environment are already being launched to support the arguments for such a
development.

Humanity
is, perhaps, entering a new stage of development. A stage when people’s
thoughts are becoming increasingly collective, a result of migration and the
possibilities created by communicating.

We
are facing a fight for human thought. Obstacles and taboos that limit it must
be deconstructed. Human thought must be liberated if it is to collectively
achieve the international solidarity needed to confront the Power Elite’s
Big Brother society and cause its acolytes to disperse.

This
is a film you MUST look at. The film, found in 2007, was made by UFA
during/after Norway's capitulation to Germany in 1940, was shown for the first
time ever yesterday on Norwegian TV NRK2. It is a VERY good film because it
tells the truth about why Norway was occupied - the English and French were
about to occupy us.

As
in the rest of Western world, the Jews have stopped Norway from telling the
truth.Then if Norway told the
truth she would have to annul all sentences given to members of Nasjonal
Samling – Quisling's party – after WWII.

All
the world agrees that Norway capitulated to The Third Reich on June 10, 1940,
but Norway says: WE NEVER CAPITULATED.

The
agreements signed on June 10, 1940 was a regional capitulation meaning the
king and the government had NOT said the high command could sign a
capitulation agreement with the Third Reich. They have a lot of idiotic
explanation to why two agreements were signed on that day, one in Bjoernefjell,
outside Narvik, signed in the morning, and in Trondheim, signed in the
afternoon.The agreement signed in
Trondheim was signed by a representative of the high command of Norway,
Oberstleutnant im Generalstabe R. Roscher Nielsen, and Oberst im Generalstabe
Buschenhagen.I have copy of both
agreements. Do you want to see them?

A Question:
Have you ever heard of any Jew-lackeys agreeing to have lost to The Third
Reich?And have you ever heard of
anyone saying the Third Reich was honest and treated them well?

While
world Jewry recovers from the shock of Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's Holocaust conference in Tehran, emotions are slowly giving way
to analysis.

Why
is Ahmadinejad pursuing this foolish crusade against the Holocaust? After
all, even he must know that the Holocaust is one of the most documented
events in human history and, hence, that denying its reality or even
questioning its magnitude and significance is likely to end up in
embarrassment. Why then is he so insistent?

The
three main reasons analysts cite for Ahmadinejad's obsession with the
Holocaust are themselves questionable. We understand, of course, that by
questioning the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad hopes to undermine what he believes
was the main justification for the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.

We
also accept Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria's explanation that "Iran is
seeking leadership in the Middle East, and what better way to do so than by
appropriating the core grievance of the Sunni Arabs: Israel."

Finally,
Ahmadinejad clearly enjoys ridiculing what he sees as a European
double-standard – criminalizing Holocaust deniers on the one hand and
advocating free speech on the other. But these reasons, if they are the real
reasons, entail heavy risks for Ahmadinejad. First, a serious risk exists
that driven by all the media attention, curious, bright youngsters in Iran
and Arab countries will venture to dig into the vast evidence for the
Holocaust and upon realizing its magnitude and veracity, begin to ask what
other parts of history were purged from their state-controlled education.

Second,
promoting the Palestinian cause through Holocaust denial tarnishes the
former with all the absurdities of the latter, in much the same way that
post-Sept. 11 conspiracy theories have discredited Muslims and weakened
their claims.

Lastly,
using Holocaust denial as an instrument for delegitimizing Israel may
actually backfire. Columbia professor Joseph Massad argued (Al Ahram, 2004)
that Arabs' preoccupation with Holocaust denial creates the impression that
the Holocaust, if it were true, suffices to justify the establishment of
Israel. This, according to Massad, serves the Zionist agenda, hence,
"All those in the Arab world who deny the Jewish Holocaust are in my
opinion Zionists."

My
concerns lie elsewhere. I fear that as the buzz winds down and the dust
settles, there will be only one thing remembered from the Holocaust
Conference in Tehran: Israel and the Holocaust are one. That is, Israel owes
its existence to one and only one factor: European guilt over the crime of
the Holocaust. Once this is established, the next obvious question is: Why
should the Palestinians pay for Europe's crime?

We,
of course, do not see things that way. For us, the State of Israel is the
culmination of a long historical process of collective homecoming, not a
rescue boat from the claws of Germany. While the Nazi genocide definitely
accelerated that process, it did not initiate or redirect it.

The
concepts of "Holy Land," "Shivat Zion," "Kibbutz
Galuyot" -- the ingathering of the exiles -- three vital engines of
Jewish history, are as old as Judaism itself. The majority of the 600,000
Jews who immigrated to Palestine prior to 1940 did not flee the Holocaust
nor did the 580,000 Jews who came to Israel from Arab countries in the early
1950s.

Jews
are generally aware of the immutable connection between Eretz Israel and
Jewishness. We know deep down that Shimon Peres is not less indigenous to
the Land of Canaan than, say, Mahmoud Abbas. Yet, we seem unwilling to
openly assert it.

Take
the movie, "Munich," for example, written and produced by two
educated Jewish artists. While a Palestinian terrorist in the movie is shown
yearning for his father's orchard, you will be wasting your time combing the
script for a hint that Israeli society has any clue why they are in Israel
and not, say, in Uganda. Tony Kushner knows why; he also knows that every
Israeli knows why, yet he apparently did not feel comfortable enough to
articulate it anywhere in his script.

I
see a similar pattern in the criticism of the Holocaust Conference in
Tehran. I hear tons of well-deserved condemnations of Ahmadinejad for
orchestrating such an offensive conference but not one voice saying: Hey
man! What a waste of time. We don't need a Shoah to justify a Jewish state
on that sliver of land. Our history was born there, and our collective
consciousness has remained there.

The
main danger that I see emerging from Ahmadinejad's conference is that the
international community, busy to rectify his misconceptions about the
Holocaust, would ignore, and in fact mimic, his wanton disregard of the
historical, national and religious ties that bind the Jewish people to their
ancient land.

They
ought to be reminded, and Ahmadinejad has given us a stage to do so.

Judea
Pearl is a professor at UCLA and president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation www.danielpearl.org
. He is a co-author of "I am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by
the Last Words of Daniel Pearl (Jewish Lights, 2004). Beginning this week,
he starts a monthly column in The Jewish Journalhttp://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=1737

_____________________________

ON THE HOLOCAUST CONFERENCE SPONSORED BY THE GOVERNMENT
OF IRAN

By Gholam Reza Afkhami and over one hundred others

We the undersigned Iranians, Notwithstanding our diverse views on
the Israeli–Palestinian conflict; Considering that the Nazis' coldly
planned "Final Solution" and their ensuing campaign of genocide
against Jews and other minorities during World War II constitute undeniable
historical facts;

Deploring that the denial of these unspeakable crimes has become
a propaganda tool that the Islamic Republic of Iran is using to further its
own agendas;

Noting that the new brand of anti-Semitism prevalent in the
Middle East today is rooted in European ideological doctrines of the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and has no precedent in Iran's history;

Emphasizing that this is not the first time that the government of
the Islamic Republic of Iran has resorted to the denial and distortion of
historical facts;

Recalling that this government has refused to acknowledge, among
other things, its mass execution of its own citizens in 1988, when thousands
of political prisoners, previously sentenced to prison terms, were secretly
executed because of their beliefs;

Strongly condemn the
Holocaust Conference sponsored by the government of the Islamic Republic of
Iran in Tehran on December 11–12, 2006, and its attempt to falsify history;

Pay homage to the memory of the millions of Jewish and non-Jewish
victims of the Holocaust, and express our empathy for the survivors of
this immense tragedy as well as all other victims of crimes against humanity
across the world.